/lit/ - Literature

>>11882551
>I'm not saying he gave the word atom to the wrong thing, I'm saying there is nothing that could be given atom in his sense of the word.
So your point really does come down entirely to pedantry. Thanks for confirming. You are aware that the fundamental particles are indivisible, correct?
>No, because there are not actual indivisible things.
What can electrons be divided into? Do you know what quanta are? Things really do get discreet, although probabilistic, at the subatomic scale. Or is your issue more with destruction than division? Almost the whole of the physics and chemistry that built our modern world can be described with a model that does not take into account the annihilation of particles, be it jet engines or microwave ovens.
>Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with quantum mechanics.
Actually, the issue of whether things are discreet or continuous at the subatomic scale (basically the crux of quantum mechanics) is exactly what you're talking about, though you appear to be overly fond of talking out your ass.

Your stance would work just as well for arguing that Galileo was wrong since a bowling ball actually does fall to earth faster than a golf ball, all be it to a nearly infinitesimally small degree. Who cares that his model helped expand our understanding of the solar system and universe? I mean, he was WRONG, durr.

You don't seem to get how important it is for someone to develop a model that is close to the mark of how things actually work. Then we build better tools, and eventually we discover that things are a bit more complicated than the model we were using stated, and the whole process repeats. The models that get us to the next stage of complexity, even if they eventually fall apart, are the ideas that drive science forward. Democritus' model of atoms was one of those ideas, but you fail to grasp this because you are a braindead pedant. Or maybe you're one of those far too common idiots that come out in droves every generation to fart out a few thoughts about how our current models won't possibly be replaced just as thoroughly as the old ones, I don't know. Please either kill or castrate yourself and save future generations of humanity from being contaminated by your terminal case of pic related. I pity whoever has to deal with you in real life, as few things are more tiresome than someone who is incapable of realizing that his rigid and broken mind is always the weakest one in the room.

>>9872646
>muh reddit

>>9363686

Like I said before: cult-like behavior.

He's not getting laid. Evolution proved him wrong.

>>7529543

Shitty writing by any other name...

IIRC he dropped calling himself a Socialist, but continued calling himself a Trotskyist. How/why he do that?

>>6177891

>>5494747
ah, yes, the semantic argument.
>well technically it's not____
fuck off, sperglord